Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Godavarthy Lakshmi Lavanya vs The Union Of India, on 9 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARA
(Special Original Jurisdiction) A
SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOb|S
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR o
Wj
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 20382 OF 2024
Between;
Godavarthy Lakshmi Lavanya, W/o. G. Ram Mohan, Aged about 34
Years, Occ C.E.O. of M/s Inodaya Hospital, R/o. 2-22-6, Girija Street,
Srinagar, Kakinada - 533 003
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Union of India, Ministry of external affairs. Represented by its
Secretary, South block. New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional passport office,Near P.F.
Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Layout, NAD Post,
Visakhapatnam - 530 009
3. The Station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, Sarpavaram
Kakinada - 533 005.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly
one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondent No.2 in directing the petitioner to get Case Clearance Letter for
the purpose of renewal of petitioner's passport bearing No. K2752410 as
V
X
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India
and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Passport of the
Petitioner without insisting upon her to produce Case Clearance Letter.
%
■ lA'NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to renew petitioner's passport bearing
No. K2752410 without insisting upon her for production of Case Clearance
Letter pending disposal of the present writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; SRI DILIP JAYARAM S
(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010395902024
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH AT
AMARAVATI [3329]
(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THENINETEENTHDAYOFOCTOBER TWO
THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
thfhonourablesrijusticevenkateswarlunimmagadda writ
PETITION NO: 20382/2024
Between:
...PETITIONER
GodavarthyLakshmiLavanya
AND
TheUnionOfIndiaandOthers ...RESPONDENT(S)
CounselforthePetitioner:
1.NS1VAREDDY
CounselfortheRespondent(S):
1. DILIPJAYARAMS(CENTRALGOVERNMENTCOUNSEL)
2.GPFORHOME
TheCourtmadethefollowing:
ORDER:
–
1. Thiswritpetitionisfiledclaimingthefollowingrelief;
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of
Respondent No. 2 in directing the petitioner to get Case
Clearance Letter for the purpose of renewal of petitioner’s
passportbearingNo.K2752410asillegal, arbitraryandviolative of
Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently
direct the Respondents to renew the Passport of the petitioner
without insisting upon her to produce Case Clearance Letter
and pass such other order or orders…”
2. Thecaseofthepetitionerisasfollows;
3.
The petitioner herein is the Chief Executive Officer of M/s.lnodaya
Hospital at Kakinada and it i
IS providing treatment to inpatients andoutpatients,
who are suffering from various ailments.
4. While so, during the Covid-19 pandemic, local leaders of the
subject
area pressurized the police authorities to file a case with an intention to cause
disreputation to the Hospital. Pursuant to which, the Police Authorities the
registered a case vide F.I.R.No.136 of 2021 on 13.05.2021
against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 188 IPC and Section 18-B
read with
20-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 51-B of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005.The allegation In the said FIR is that the Durg
inspector along with other authorities inspected the pharmacy of the Hospital
on 13.05.2021 and they found from the pharmacy record that the
hospital
purchased 459 Remdesivir injections from different sources and failed to
produce sale bills for si
SIX Remdesivir injections.Basing on the same, they
presumed that the said injections were purchased from unauthorized
sources
and sold then in black market at higher prices
pri without maintaining sale bills
and violated the rules.
5.
It is further submitted that the
police having conducted investigation
filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences stated supra and the
learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the said case and numbered it as
C.C.No.2359 of 2022
on the file of the Court of the Special Mobile Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as part of running the
hospital administration, the petitioner need to attend international medical
conferences to be held in various parts of the world, in addition to family
vacations.Hence, the petitioner initially applied for a passport and Respondent
No.2 issued a passport bearing No.K2752410 in favour of the petitioner on
18.01.2012, which expired on 17.01.2022.Pursuant to the expiration of the
said passport, the petitioner applied for renewal within time stipulated under
Passport Act, requesting renewal for a period of 10 yearsvide File
NO.VS5074202224522 on 11.05.2022. In pursuance of petitioner’s passport
renewal application. Respondent No.2 gave an endorsement stating that they
received an adverse Police Verification report and instructed the petiioner to
submit the case clearance letter for restoration of passport facility.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is prime
facie case in favour of the petitioner as the actions of the Respondents are
patently illegal.Further irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner, if
passport is not renewed and not permitted to travel abroad.Hence the writ
petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the fundamental
right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish
as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Courtparticularly
\nManeka Gandhi vs. Union oflndia^.
1978AIR597
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down bythis
Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others^. In view of the
settled principles of law. the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport
10.
Ontheotherhand.thelearnedcounselfortheRespondents submitsthatas per
the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08 .1993, when a criminalcase is
pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce
either an Acquittal Order or
No Objection Certificate (NOC) from
theCourtbelowwherecaseispendingalong withGSR570(E)undertaking • Hence,if the
Court gives permission to the
applicant to travel abroad and directs the
Respondent Authorities to i*
issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order
in accordance with the GSR 570(E).
11.
It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned
Judge in Khadar Vallf Shaik’s Case’ the petitioner is required to obtain orders
from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him.
12.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
Respondents and perused the material placed on record.
13.
In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case{3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with
various caselawonthesubject andpasseda detailed order,theoperativeportion of
which reads as follows;-
^W.P.No.4196of2024,dated20.02.2024
^W.P.No.l392of2023,dated07.03.2023
X
(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent
passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on
compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the
pendencyof thecriminalcaseintheCourt concernedfortrial, isrejected.
(b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the
cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the
Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order
from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.
(c) Onproductionof anorder fromtheconcernedCourt,asaforesaid, the
application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere
pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance ofother
requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.
14. Further inWP No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of
the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as
follows
“9.A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021
in W.P.No.20058 of2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information
Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular
passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by
an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have
commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend
on no objection being given by the concerned Court.
10. TheCentralGovernmenthasalsoissuedG. S. R. No.570(E),dated
25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a
Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).”
11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only
whenthereisapendingproceedingsbeforetheCriminalCourtafter
f-*
cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is
nopending criminal proceeding before the Court.”
15.
In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the
HigherCourt for the State of Telangana held as follows:
6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page
570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as
under:
“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is
proved. /\s a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all
the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its Judgment dated
09.04.2019reportedinLA WS2019(2)SCConlineSC2048inSatish
Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4observed
as under:
“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right
for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative
character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms
of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.
The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and
fnendshipwhicharethebasichumanitieswhichcanbe”w.P.No.25141of2023,dated 03.10.2023
r-
V
^”^<>><^^>f<roughrefusaloffreedorn,o9oabroadanMisfreedo m IS a
genuine human right.”
16.
In the light of the
settled legal position, this Court is inclined to
dispose of the writ petition
with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider
the case of the
petitioner and renew the
passport of the petitioner, and
renew his passport, for a period of two (02) years” in accordance with law,
without
raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide
C.C.No.2359 of 2022
on the file of Court of the Special Mobile Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kakinada,
within a period of two (02) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order”.
17.
Further, if the petitioner i
intend to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior
permission from the Court
concerned for such travel and shall appear before the
trial Court, whenever her
presence is required by the Court.
18.
However, this order shall
not preclude the prosecution from taking such
steps as are
necessary to ensure the
presence of the petitioner for any other
purposes.There shall be no order as to costs.
19.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand
closed.
SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU i
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \
//TRUE COPY//
/
To,
SECTION OFFICER
Union of India
New Delhi - 1 lo 001 Ministry of external affairs. South block.
Visakhapatnam’^’*^”°Ba?^r’^MaSpateni’\fljnyf”^’
– 530 009 ‘ office,Near
VUDA Layout, P.F.
NAD Post,
/
KaL®a”33 Station, Sarpavaram
4. One CC to Sri. N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
® COUNSEL)
rntiSSm Advocate [OPUC]® (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
6. One CC to GP For Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC],
7. Three CD Copies
IA°Nn onol ‘® amended as Per Court Order dated 09-12-2024 i in
^Irr ‘ in order portion. Substitute this amended order in piace
Of earlier order which was despatched on 25-10-2024.
SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
«««*
HIGH COURT cc
DATED;19/10/2024
09/12/2024
AMENDED ORDER
WP.No.20382 of 2024
2 7 DEC 2r2'i Co
Current Section ^
DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS